DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, and 20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3,and 20 are amended.
This action is made Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Doi to use steam in the reformer for hydrolyzing waste, as disclosed by Shimbo because the temperature in Doi cannot exceed an active temperature range for the microorganisms. Although the applicant is correct that Doi teaches heat treatment and microorganism for liquefaction, Doi does not teach that microorganism are required for the liquefaction or that the microorganism/bacteria used in the hydrolysis (liquefaction) are used in subsequent treatment steps. Doi teaches that the benefit of pre-liquefaction (hydrolysis) is the reduced energy costs for dehydration of the slurry (see Doi pg. 4 lines 7-12). As liquefaction to improve dehydration of the slurry is the intended goal of the pre-liquefaction step of Doi it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the heat treatment of Doi with the steam treatment of Shimbo because the steam treatment (hydrolysis) of Shimbo results in a slurry that is more easily dehydrated (see Shimbo pg. 3: background art).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi (JPS 5814995A, Cited in IDS, translation provided by Applicant used for citations) in view of Slager et al (US 2020/0030764) and Shimbo et al (JP 2019214028, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1:
Doi teaches the waste treatment system, comprising: a reformer for hydrolyzing waste (pre-liquidization treatment with stream treatment) (see pg. 5 lines 5-8); and a microbial reactor for microbially degrading a reformed material containing at least a solid (excess sludge) among the waste hydrolyzed in the at least one reformer (compost making equipment 6) (see Abstract, fig, 1, pg. 3 para. 0001); and a separator between the reformer and the microbial reactor (screening can be used, therefore a screen is present downstream of the pre-liquefaction treatment and upstream of the fermentation tank and compost making equipment) (see pg. 6 lines 7-10), the separator being configured to separate a reaction-unsuitable substance, which is unsuitable for microbial degradation in the microbial reactor, from the reformed material.
Doi does not teach that the reformer hydrolyzes waste under steam or a fermentation inhibitor sensor for detecting a concentration of a fermentation inhibitor in the reformed material: and an adjustment device for adjusting a hydrolysis condition of the waste in the reformer based on the concentration of the fermentation inhibitor.
Slager teaches a fermentation inhibitor sensor (IR detector) for detecting a concentration of a fermentation inhibitor in the reformed material (see para. 0040): and an adjustment device (control system 132) for adjusting a hydrolysis condition (optimize conditions) of the waste in the reformer based on the concentration of the fermentation inhibitor (see para. 0040).
Doi and Slager are analogous inventions in the art of hydrolysis systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the sensor and adjustment device of Slager to the reformer of Doi because it allows the process to be optimized (see Slager para. 0040) and it is the simple addition of a known control system to a known hydrolysis system, obviously resulting in controlling the hydrolysis reactor, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Shimbo teaches a waste treatment system wherein the reformer hydrolyze the waste within the housing with the steam (see pg. 4, 2nd paragraph).
Doi, as modified, and Shimbo are analogous inventions in the art of systems for hydrolysing waste. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace each of the reformers of Doi with the reformer (hydrothermal treatment apparatus) of Shimbo because it is the simple substitution of one known hydrothermal apparatus with another hydrothermal apparatus, obviously resulting in the hydrolysis of the waste, with an expectation of success. Further Doi is open to different types of hydrolysis apparatus (see Doi pg. 5, line 7). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 2:
Doi, as modified teaches the waste treatment system according to claim 1.
Doi is silent as to the structure of the reformer (pre-liquification device).
Shimbo teaches a waste treatment system wherein the reformer includes: a housing (treatment container 21) for receiving the waste (see pg. 3, 7th paragraph); an input port (third sludge pipe 35) for inputting the waste to the housing (see pg. 4, 4th paragraph); a discharge port (product pipe 63) for discharging the reformed material from the housing (see pg. 7, 3rd paragraph); and opening (supply side valves 22b and 22c) (see pg. 4, 3rd paragraph from bottom) and closing valves(discharge side valve 25a) for opening and closing the input port and the discharge port (see pg. 7, 3rd paragraph), respectively, and wherein the waste within the housing is hydrolyzed in a batch manner while the housing is sealed by closing each of the opening and closing valves (see pg. 4, 3rd paragraph from bottom, pg. 6, 3rd paragraph, fig. 2).
Doi, as modified, and Shimbo are analogous inventions in the art of systems for hydrolysing waste. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace each of the reformers of Doi, as modified, with the reformer (hydrothermal treatment apparatus) of Shimbo because it is the simple substitution of one known hydrothermal apparatus with another hydrothermal apparatus, obviously resulting in the hydrolysis of the waste, with an expectation of success. Further Doi is open to different types of hydrolysis apparatus (see Doi pg. 5, line 7). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 3:
Doi, as modified teaches the waste treatment system according to claim 1 wherein the reformer includes a housing (treatment container 21) for receiving the waste (see Shimbo pg. 3, 7th paragraph), and wherein the at least one reformer is configured to supply steam into the housing to heat and hydrolyze the waste within the housing with the steam (see Shimbo pg. 4, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 5:
Doi, as modified, teaches the waste treatment system according to claim 1, wherein, in the reformer, hydrolysis is performed at temperatures between normal temperature and 250°C (150 degrees to 230 degrees °C) (see Shimbo pg. 3, 8th paragraph) and at pressures between atmospheric pressure and 40 atmospheres (0.5 Mpa to 3 Mpa) (see Shimbo pg. 3, 8th paragraph). It is noted that claim 5 is directed to a system, the temperature and pressure are method limitations that only add patentable weight to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same method. As these temperatures and pressures are known to be usable in a reformer the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 7:
Doi, as modified, teaches the waste treatment system according to claim 1, wherein the microbial reactor includes at least one of: a biogas fermentation tank for producing biogas; a saccharification tank for producing sugar from carbohydrate; and a composting device for producing compost (compost making equipment 6) (see Doi Abstract, fig, 1, pg. 3 para. 0001).
Regarding Claim 9:
Doi, as modified, teaches the waste treatment system according to claim 1.
Doi does not teach a moisture adjusting device.
Shimbo teaches a moisture adjusting device (dehydrator 4 in combination with water pipe 71) for adjusting a moisture content of a reformed material (see pg. 7, 9th paragraph).
Doi, as modified, and Shimbo are analogous inventions in the art of systems for hydrolysing waste. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the moisture adjusting device of Shimbo to the reformed material of Doi because it can prevent clogging within the reformer device (see Shimbo pg. 7, last paragraph, pg. 8, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 10:
Doi, as modified, teaches the waste treatment system according to claim 9, wherein the moisture adjusting device is a drying device (dehydrator 4) for reducing the moisture content of the reformed material (see Shimbo pg. 7, 9th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 11:
Doi, as modified, teaches the waste treatment system according to claim 9, wherein the moisture adjusting device is a washing device (pipes 71a, b) for washing a reaction-suitable substance adhering to the reaction- unsuitable substance (pipes spray into the reactor, therefore they wash the material) (see Shimbo pg. 7, 9th paragraph).
Regarding Claim 12:
Doi, as modified, teaches the waste treatment system according to claim 1.
Doi does not teach a dehydrator or water injection pipe.
Shimbo teaches a waste treatment system further comprising a dehydrator (dehydrator 4) for dehydrating a residue of the microbial reactor; and a water injection pipe (pipe 71) for feeding water dehydrated by the dehydrator to at least one of the reformed material before flowing into the separator, inside of the reformer, or inside of the microbial reactor (see Shimbo pg. 7, 9th paragraph).
Doi and Shimbo are analogous inventions in the art of systems for hydrolysing waste. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the water injecting pipe of Shimbo to the reformed material of Doi because it can prevent clogging within the reformer device (see Shimbo pg. 7, last paragraph, pg. 8, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the dehydrator Shimbo downstream of the microbial reactor because it reduced the energy needed for drying waste (see Shimbo pg. 2, 4th paragraph) and it is the simple addition of a known treatment step to a known waste stream, obviously resulting in dehydrated material, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 13:
Doi, as modified, teaches the waste treatment system according to any one of claim 1, wherein the separator is a screen (screening for separating the reformed material into a large particle size component (coarse material) and a small particle size component having a smaller particle size than the large particle size component, and the large particle size component is the reaction- unsuitable substance (coarse material is removed) (see Doi pg. 6 lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 20:
Doi teaches the waste treatment method, comprising: a step of hydrolyzing waste (pre-liquidization treatment with stream treatment) (see pg. 5 lines 5-8); a step of microbially degrading a reformed material containing at least a solid among the waste that was hydrolyzed (compost making equipment 6) (see Abstract, fig, 1, pg. 3 para. 0001); and a step of separating a reaction-unsuitable substance, which is unsuitable for the microbial degradation in the step of degrading, from the reformed material, between the step of hydrolyzing and the step of degrading (screening. a screen is present downstream of the pre-liquefaction treatment and upstream of the fermentation tank and compost making equipment) (see pg. 6 lines 7-10).
Doi does not teach hydrolyzing waste under steam or a step of detecting a concentration of a fermentation inhibitor in the reformed material; and a step of adjusting a hydrolysis condition of the water in the step of hydrolyzing waste based on the concentration of the fermentation inhibitor.
Slager teaches a step of detecting a concentration of a fermentation inhibitor in the reformed material; and a step of adjusting a hydrolysis condition (optimizing) of the water in the step of hydrolyzing waste based on the concentration of the fermentation inhibitor (see para. 0040).
Doi and Slager are analogous inventions in the art of hydrolysis methods. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the detecting and adjustment steps of Slager to the hydrolysis method of Doi because it allows the process to be optimized (see Slager para. 0040) and it is the simple addition of a known control step to a known hydrolysis method, obviously resulting in controlling the hydrolysis reactor, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Shimbo teaches hydrolyzing waste with the steam (see pg. 4, 2nd paragraph).
Doi, as modified, and Shimbo are analogous inventions in the art of hydrolysing waste. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace each of the reformers of Doi with the reformer (hydrothermal treatment apparatus) of Shimbo because it is the simple substitution of one known hydrothermal apparatus with another hydrothermal apparatus, obviously resulting in the hydrolysis of the waste with steam, with an expectation of success. Further Doi is open to different types of hydrolysis apparatus (see Doi pg. 5, line 7). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Doi (JPS 5814995A, Cited in IDS, translation provided by Applicant used for citations), Slager et al (US 2020/0030764), and Shimbo et al (JP 2019214028, English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koyama et al (JP 2014124614, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 4:
Doi, as modified, teaches the waste treatment system according to claim 1.
Doi, as modified does not teach the housing includes a heating part for hydrolyzing the waste within the housing by heating moisture contained in the waste while avoiding contact with the waste.
Koyama teaches a waste treatment system wherein the reformer includes a housing for receiving the waste (treatment unit 2), and wherein the housing includes a heating part (heating unit 2A) for hydrolyzing the waste within the housing by heating moisture contained in the waste while avoiding contact with the waste (heat exchange is used) (see pg. 3, 5th paragraph, fig. 1).
Doi, as modified, and Koyama are analogous inventions in the art of systems for hydrolysing waste. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace each of the reformers of Doi, as modified, with the reformer (subcritical water treatment unit) of Koyama because it is the simple substitution of one known hydrothermal apparatus with another hydrothermal apparatus, obviously resulting in the hydrolysis of the waste, with an expectation of success. Further Doi is open to different types of hydrolysis apparatus (see Doi pg. 5, lines 6-7). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights